Katata action item- Comparison chart2
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
Thu Sep 8 22:38:15 PDT 2005
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
>how work then Panasonic proposal
Toshiba proposal limits disc type as ROM. HD-DVD has DVD-ROM layer flag.
DVD-ROM too. After a format layer is selected, drive initializes (mount)
the format layer, then host can see the information. This is very good.
In case of Panasonic, when drive supports Reading only for Hybrid disc,
drive can do same thing. In any case, drive may report ROM Profile.
Microsoft & Nero proposal:
If a format layer is DVD-RAM, HD-DVD RW, BD-RE or BD-R, to report (to know)
the capacity, drive must read DMA. It takes long time.
So I think that remove capacity field from Mulit-layer feature, add
intermediate (not yet) flag for each Profile fields of Mulit-layer feature
may be necessary. At the beginning, drive reports ROM Profile code of the
associated format layer with "Not Yet" flag. When host issues Read Disc
Structure command to a format layer, drive checks the format layer, then
report its correct information. At this moment, drive does not change the
lowest format layer. Operational Change Event is reported when contents of
Mulit-layer feature except "Not Yet" flag is changed to notify Get Config
When ROM disc is inserted to drive, it is recommended that drive becomes
ready within 10-15 sec. It is recommended that the associated software runs
and play back starts within 20-30 sec. By Microsoft & Nero proposal, it is
Nero proposal merit is that new FS can see all format layer at a time.
Legacy FS can see the lowest format layer. There is no conflict. But new FS
is not legacy one. I wrote this demerit to compare Microsoft proposal.
Panasonic proposal demerit is that only one format layer can be mounted. Of
course, special FS that uses special read cache memory can show all
contents with Panasonic proposal. But Panasonic may not request such FS.
"David Burg" <dburg at nero.com>@avc-pioneer.com on 2005/09/09 00:38:56
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(J
$BAw?.<T(J: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(J: <mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com>, <keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp>,
"'Henry Gabryjelski'" <henrygab at windows.microsoft.com>
cc: <t10 at t10.org>
$B7oL>(J: RE: Katata action item- Comparison chart2
Dear Katata-san, Dear Henry, Dear all,
I understand that gathering the type and size of each format later will
cause the mount to be slow for Nero proposal. However I wonder how work
Panasonic proposal to respond to a read dvd structure describing all the
format layers. Is then the mount quick but the response to read dvd
structure very slow? Also, how slow is very slow, is this twice the usual
time for a disc with two format layer?
I believe Microsoft intend to have the information about all layers
pre-recorded on each layer so that there is no slow mount problem (at the
expense of a physical specification change). Is that right Henry?
Also, Katata-san write "To show all contents on the disc, FS implementation
change is required." for Nero proposal. But, isn't it the case also for
Panasonic proposal? Both proposals have the capability to select the
format layer for the FS so I think the problem either affect both solutions
From: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com [mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com]
On Behalf Of keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:36 AM
To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Cc: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Katata action item- Comparison chart2
I add Nero proposal.
Please send any comments.
(See attached file: Comparison chart2.zip)
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10